Ombudsman Signals ‘Big Push’ in Flood Control Cases — Accountability or Optics?
The Office of the Ombudsman has signaled a “big push” in pursuing cases related to controversial flood control projects — an issue that has drawn public anger after repeated flooding incidents across the country.
According to reports, the Ombudsman is preparing to accelerate investigations and file more cases tied to alleged anomalies in flood mitigation programs. The announcement comes amid mounting scrutiny over billions allocated to flood control from 2022 to 2025.
For many Filipinos, this development raises one key question:
Is this finally the accountability phase?
Flood control has long been one of the most funded sectors in public infrastructure. Yet despite massive allocations, communities continue to experience severe flooding — even in areas where projects were reportedly completed.
When disasters strike, the public does not debate procurement processes.
They see submerged homes, damaged livelihoods, and families displaced.
That is why this “big push” matters.
But the credibility of this effort will not be measured by the number of press statements issued. It will be measured by:
Who gets charged
Who gets suspended
Who gets convicted
And whether reforms follow
Accountability must go beyond mid-level officials. If investigations stop at the technical layer while policy-level decision-makers remain untouched, the public will view it as selective enforcement.
The Ombudsman plays a critical institutional role. It is designed to act independently, regardless of administration. If it truly moves decisively on flood control cases, it could signal that anti-corruption mechanisms still function.
However, timing always shapes perception.
Flood control controversies have intensified amid political tension and economic pressure. A visible crackdown can either restore trust — or be interpreted as damage control.
The difference lies in consistency.
If cases move forward regardless of political affiliation, that builds confidence.
If investigations expand transparently and reports are released publicly, that strengthens institutional credibility.
But if momentum fades once public attention shifts, skepticism will return quickly.
Flood control is not just an infrastructure issue. It is a governance test.
Every peso allocated carries two responsibilities:
Engineering efficiency
Financial integrity
When either fails, the consequences are not theoretical — they are lived by ordinary citizens.
A “big push” must therefore mean structural change:
Stronger audit trails
Stricter contractor vetting
Publicly accessible project monitoring
Real-time transparency in budget releases
Because accountability after disaster is reactive.
Reform before disaster is preventive.
If this initiative leads to systemic correction, it will mark a turning point.
If it results only in headlines without convictions, it will reinforce the cycle of outrage and amnesia.
The country does not need another wave of announcements.
It needs institutional follow-through.
